perm kills competitive equity: the negative looses all ground because the affirmative can just endorse all negative frameworks and kills competition - reason to reject the perm.
Concedes the Alt solves the aff: The perm argues that the alternative can solve back the affirmative after plan. this means that the alternative can solve 100% of the affirmative even without the perm.
It is impossible to read time Disads to critical arguments: If this was a policy argument we might be able to find a disad to a timeframe permutation. But there is hardly any if not no evidence based in critical literature about time delays.
*** AFF ANSWERS ***
Aff – History Permutation
Due to the inevitable rise of technology humanity will no longer be able to escape it’s past, only by embracing remembering and forgetting allows us to deal with social injustices
(Gerrit W. is a senior associate at CSIS in Washington, D.C., and assistant to the president at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah.The Beginning of History: Remembering and Forgetting as Strategic Issues, The Washington Quarterly, Volume 24, Number 2, Spring 2001, p. 45)
Those who assume time heals all wounds are wrong. Accelerated by the collision of information technology with concerns of the past, issues of “remembering and forgetting” are creating history. They are shaping the strategic alignments of the future. Remembering and forgetting events define what individuals and countries remember and when, as well as what individuals and countries forget and why. Remembering and forgetting issues tell grandparents and grandchildren who they are, give countries national identity, and channel the values and purposes that direct the future in the name of the past. They are the personal and policy aftermaths of peoples and countries—including Germany, Japan, and China—whose identities and international roles are rooted deep in history. Remembering and forgetting issues thus encompass, but are by no means limited to, Germany’s Holocaust; Japan’s colonization of Korea and later brutal occupation of China; China’s civil war; and Taiwan’s February 28 incident, when Chinese mainlanders killed native Taiwanese in 1947. Efforts to promote justice and reconciliation are now manifest in issues as diverse as slave and forced labor claims in Japan and Germany, “comfort women” and World War II textbook lawsuits in Japan, and Agent Orange allegations in Vietnam or the Philippines. In Asia and elsewhere, companies and states should prepare for the intensity, speed, scope, and emotional resonance of remembering and forgetting events for at least four reasons. First, modern technologies are digitally enhancing our memories and then broadcasting our most passionate personal concerns and most polarized divergences. They are playing and replaying our worst nightmares through cyberspace, with an expanding global and personal reach. The perm solves – there is a gray area between closing the past and keeping it alive
(Katharina, A perfessor at Martin Luther, Landscapes of Violence: Memory and Sacres Space, http://muse.jhu.edu, 6/24/11, S.M)
Declaring something sacred means to remove it from the everyday realm, giving it special attention and symbolic value and, at least ideally, deeming it undisputable. If applied to the commemoration of violence, the process of sacralization can be regarded as an attempt to bring the past to a close and adjust it to a future-oriented and almost evolutionist narrative of progress. Yet, as Walter Benjamin has already demonstrated in his powerful interpretation of Paul Klee’s painting Angelus Novus, the possibility of healing remains an illusion.12 Consequently, the attempts to create closure may be contrasted by conscious efforts to keep the past “alive”; or at least to actually address its complexities and the uncomfortable “gray zone,” which characterizes the space in-between unequivocal positions.13 In addition, we deal with processes of embodiment and ritual reenactment that are not necessarily or exclusively discursively framed or reflected. As J. Shawn Landres and Oren Baruch Stier have observed, “In some cases, disputes arise over memories of violence at sacred places; in other cases, the memory of violence itself is what makes the place sacred.”14 The articles in this issue aim to address these different dimensions of the production of sacrality.
We can combine theory and practice to produce a pragmatism that solves the K
Rytövuori-Apunen, ’05 – Prof IR @ U of Tampere in Finland (Helena, Cooperation & Conflict, pg. 147-177, “Forget ‘Post-Positivist’ IR!: The Legacy of IR Theory as the Locus for a Pragmatist Turn”, pg. 163-165, SagePub)
The task of this paper is to seek the locus in quo pragmatist approaches can emerge in IR’s field of knowledge and through articulated disagreement with previous discourse contribute to an increasingly global discipline beyond the logic of universalism/dispersion. I argue that seeing the locus for pragmatism, i.e. seeing more to it than another approach and a ‘new alley of inquiry’, requires rectifying the distortions created by the postpositivist self-comprehension. An alternative explanation to what Frost calls the ‘positivist bias’ can be sought by examining the specific theorycentred orientation in IR and also the discursive mechanisms and the social processes by which this relation to the world becomes the privileged knowledge that is ‘orthodoxy’. ‘Orthodoxy’ appears when the theory-centred attitude to knowing, which emphasizes theoretical perspective and conceptual logic, loses its footprints in its colloquial interpretations and presents reality ‘as it is’ (naturalized ontology). I will now discuss what the disagreement, the articulation of which I argue is required for maintenance of the idea of the corpus of knowledge as a web of discourse, can mean as a research orientation. I point to a way of inquiry which starts with Dewey, but in the epistemic sense draws from C. S. Peirce’s conception of ‘reality’ as pragma and the pragmaticist logic of inquiry. I propose that a focus in the current introductions of pragmatism on the Deweyan inheritance of classical pragmatism (Millennium 31: 3) does not help us to solve the epistemological issues pertinent in the situation which already builds on and looks beyond the ‘linguistic turn’ and calls for methodical solutions that fit together with these more recent tendencies. The Missing Piece: The Interpretative Aspect of ‘Discourse’ and ‘Culture’ The identification of what I suggest is a paradigmatic feature of the disciplinary mainstream and the legacy of IR Theory (capital letter to mark out this legacy) makes it possible, through ontological criticism, to point out two opposed epistemic paths, one based on the primacy of theory, the other proceeding from the primacy of practice. Opposed to the approach that models the world (produces a ‘world picture’, as Martin Heidegger says)22 is the orientation that proceeds from and seeks to refine what already, in some way, is present in our experience. Above, I have criticized the tendency to read disciplinary tradition in a way which, rather than focusing on analytical difference, subsumes instances of previous theory under a shared characterization and thereby suppresses the potentiality that as possibility of interpretation exists in the historical body of knowledge. In the same vein of argument, it is important to note that the opposition of epistemic positions is not only inter- but also intra-textual. For example Organski’s ambition to ‘organize the mass of [...] information to which we are all exposed’ arises from the experience that the international distribution of power is constantly shifting and that this moment, along with the importance of internal determinants of power, has been neglected by the balance of power theory (Organski, 1958: vii; 1961: 373–5). Analysing how concepts relate to historical experience and the dissatisfaction felt about previous approaches provides a point of departure for a reconstruction of theory that, from within the theory, opens up possibilities of interpretation that also challenge the theory-centred ambition (on the parallel to Descartes, see Toulmin, 1990: 56–137). Recontextualization offers a way to redress the biases of decontextualized theory, and this does not mean a Romanticist emphasis on ‘intrinsic meaning’ and the unique in experience (cf. Ashley, 1989: 278). The nexus of theory and practice, which is there in the text but which, beyond the text, deals with a historically situated moral agency, offers a point of departure for an epistemic turn that transcends the bifurcation of empiricist and rationalist epistemology. The question I have in mind is about the ‘how’ rather than the ‘what’ of specific experience. It is about the modes of encountering and making sense of the world, modes that through their habitual and institutional mechanisms can also become modalities of professional activity, such as the theory-centred episteme discussed above. A pragmatist re-interpretation of the texts of the early realists, for example, can elucidate how the ideals and guidelines for statesmanship and diplomacy arise from a world-experience that is different from but also partly similar or isomorphic to ours, and what commensurability there is, on this basis, in the logics of practice which in the different historical contexts generate policies in order to control perceived threats. Such inquiry and assessment of the legacy of IR theory seeks to sustain a living discourse diachronically through time without turning into a study of past historical praxis.23 Without bypassing the ‘weight of the discourse’ (Foucault),24 it starts out with situated moral agency and collective human intentionality and, on this basis, recognizes the inseparability of lived experience and the structures of experience that organize instances of experience. In the ontological sense, pragma means that whatever ‘is’ for a human interpretant exists not by a substance but by the regularities that endow it with its being. In the pragmatist research orientation, pragma (from the Greek word ‘business’, originally ‘a thing done’)25 means more than a way of carrying out the ‘business’ of research. It involves a critical assessment of the body of previous knowledge and requires that a new practice brings some advancement in relation to it. Like William James, John Dewey – the most influential pragmatist figure in social science and an author to whom the present-day discussion in IR in most cases makes reference – was interested in the question of how the powers of habit that maintain life serve to channel all thought, including the original of creative invention, and how the disposition of habitual responses evolves in the encounter of new types of problems. Dewey’s pragmatist ethics sought to cure the social and individual alienation that in his argument originates from the legacy of Western thought in ontological formalism, i.e. a dogmatic application of Plato’s idealism.Dewey emphasized that the ‘physician is lost who would guide his activities of healing by building up a picture of perfect health’; instead, the physician needs to employ ‘what he has discovered about actual cases of good health and ill health and their causes to investigate the present ailing individual so as to further his recovering; recovering, an intrinsic and living process ...’ (Owen, 2002: 670).Void of the inside knowledge, which involves a reflective relationship to previous practice, praxis (an established or customary practice) is like touching without realizing how by the same act one is being touched, i.e. the static position and alienation which Dewey argued were at the root of social problems (Dewey, 1981: 620–43).